Who Needs Kinky Sex?


“I like it when she licks her lips, and her dress drops to the floor.”

“I like for him to throw me on the bed and ravish me.”

“I like rigging a rope to the ceiling fan, so I can strangle myself while my partner gets me from behind, dressed like Bozo the clown.”

Of course everyone has a different taste for what they like in the bedroom (or the bathroom), (or the office), (or atop the piano), but here’s the thing:  if you require clown asphyxiation to get you off, you might want to reassess what you do with the rest of your time, because I would guess that your life is lacking in stimulation.

According to a recent episode of Fox’s American Dad, everybody’s got “a kink.”  Of course the definition of what is and what is not kinky is going to vary from person to person.  In said episode, “kinks” ran the gamut from spanking to a strange inference involving an acrobatic midget and a flying weasel holding a rocket pop.

The inference is that everyone requires some kind of “kink” in order to make sex a gratifying experience.  But does anyone, at any point, start wondering whether we’re expecting too much from sex?  Yes, sex is naturally gratifying – it was made to be so on a biological level.  But if you need a horse, a pocket watch, and authentic chainmail from the crusades to get off – it’s no longer sex that is gratifying you.

Here are some things that those in the whips, chains, and inflatable-life-size-smurf community might want to consider.  One would be therapy – not because there is anything wrong with what you’re doing, but a better understanding about what drives it would be beneficial in general.  (Don’t take it personally – my first suggestion to everyone for everything is therapy.  Got a hangnail?  Try therapy.)

Second would be introspection on your job and hobbies.  Are you working to your potential?  Is it possible that the reason you seek out sexual partners who will flog you with geneoa salami while you hang from your home trapeze is actually because, well, proofreading phone books for a living is killing you inside and you should be teaching inner city kids earth sciences instead?  I mean, wind currents are fascinating.

Third I would wonder about your choice of sexual partner.  Have you ever experienced a sexual encounter with a partner who you have genuinely cared about?  Have you ever actually made love?  Instead of thinking about sex as a mode of biological gratification, have you ever conceived of it as a construct of emotional connection or expression?

How would sex change if we propogated it as personal gratification rather than physical gratification?  Then everybody’s got a kink would be transformed from “I like to be spanked and called dirty names” to “I like to be hugged and communicated with honestly.”

Your Sexy Vasectomy


There are two kinds of men when it comes to mentioning the word “vasectomy”:  those who immediately thrust a protective palm over their nether regions and those who have already had one.

If you are among the first population, it is possible that, as protective as you may be of your tender potency, you may be considering getting a vasectomy.  Whatever reasons you may have, it is clear that the one thing more terrifying than having your manhood snipped is hearing those two awful words, “I’m late.”

You’ve already taken the first and most important step in the vasectomy trail – you’ve consulted your doctor.  He’s explained the procedure to you and answered all of your terrified questions.  You’ve read all the clinical pamphlets he sent home (you know, after covering all the disturbing procedure images with blank sticky notes).  But can you be that guy?  Can you walk around town, the office, a truck dealership, knowing you’re no longer potent?

Consider a woman’s perspective on the matter.  (Besides, what is this procedure for if not the T&A?)  Only a man would deride another man for shooting blanks.  To a woman, a man with a vasectomy is a man who possess two inherent traits:  confidence and dependability.

What is the most attractive trait in a potential mate?  If you said high cheek bones, you are very close.  But the real answer is confidence.

It isn’t as though women aren’t aware how important highly functional testicles are to their male counterparts, even if they disagree on principle.  In order for a man to concede to a vasectomy, he has to pry himself away from the stigma that not ejaculating live sperm makes him less of a man.  He has to be comfortable enough with his own masculinity to agree to this permanent change in potency.  Women get that, and that amount of confidence in one’s own masculinity is attractive.

Traditionally, birth control has always been conceived as a responsibility of the woman.  It was the woman who had to take her pill regularly.  It was the woman who had to undergo invasive and debilitating surgery to deem a couple permanently barren.  It was even the woman who had to ask “do you have a condom?” because when all the blood has been redirected south, you tend to not think of anything else.

In the 21st century women have a lot to do.  There is a reason they’re not greeting you at the door with a cigar and a martini when you stroll in from work every night at five-thirty.  Chances are she isn’t going to walk in the door for another half an hour.  Or she’s taking someone to soccer practice, or boy scouts, or is getting the dog groomed.

In the 21st century, knights in shining armor don’t come with a horse and a lance – they come with a toilet brush and a fly swatter.  Anything a man can do to make his female counterpart feel less burdened makes that man immensely sexier.

When a man takes the hard road and relents to a vasectomy, what he’s saying to his female partner is “I’ve got this.”  It is showing her that she can rely on him to take care of things; never having to worry about a pill or a condom again is a huge load off.  (Pun intended.)  You’ve freed her from this particular prison of responsibility.

And in this day and age, That.  Is.  Hot.

Ms. Smith, Meet Mr. DoverMcHenderSmasherSonField

Generally, the terms “last name,” surname” and “family name” are used interchangeably to mean the same thing:  the name that comes, you know, last in your given sequence of names, handed down through the, you know, family, that associates you as a member of said family.

However, in the modern society of this millennium, the surname is mostly used for tax purposes.  Surnames can no longer be considered “family” names, as it is so infrequent that everyone in the family has the same name.

Throughout the course of history, the purpose of names has changed significantly.  The last name, the family name, the surname – this was invented when there were simply too many “Johns” running around, and we needed to start keeping them straight:

“Who stoleth the eggs from thine chicken coop?”

“Twas John, sir!”

“John?  It could not be, for John was beheaded the day before last.”

“No, sir, not that John.  The other John.”

“The widower?”

“No, sir.  The other John.”

“The jester?”

“No, sir.  The other John.”

They cropped up around the world at different times, but eventually everyone seemed to catch on that this two-name convention avoided a lot of confusion and saved a lot of time.

When adopting a family name, most cultures seemed to go with the practical.  For example, if a guy travelled, his last name typically became his place of origin.  (Welcome to the world, Mr. Lisbon.)  Or if he didn’t travel, but there was nothing interesting about him either, they’d just name him after whatever was closest to him.  (Hey, Mr. Hill.  Don’t take it personally.)

But typically, your job became your name:

“Hello, we are the Millers.”

“Nice to meet you.  What do you do?”

“Um…we’re the millers.”

Got a thatcher?  You’re Mr. Thatcher.  Got a Mason?  You’re Mr. Mason.  Got a blacksmith?  A goldsmith?  A locksmith?  A wordsmith?  Guess what, you’re all Smiths.

After the adoption of a surname, it got handed down and became a family name.  It wasn’t just the actual carpenter who was a Carpenter, the whole family became Carpenters, regardless of their propensity for woodworking.  Ten generations later, even after the sixth Mr. Carpenter’s son, Mr. Carpenter, shunned the family business and decided to be a drummer instead, the name remained the same.

Of course as the names were handed down through generations, they became a paradigm of membership.  Mr. Brook married, and his wife became Mrs. Brook, and she became a member of the Brook name.  Then their children became Brooks, and the whole family is a singular unit of Brook.

Today, however, surnames are a lot more fickle than they used to be.  It is no longer the expected norm that a woman will take a man’s name if they choose to marry – and that’s if they choose to marry, because many life partners choose not to.

Nor is it assumed that a child will be given his father’s surname upon birth.  Sometimes it’s the mother’s, sometimes the father’s.  Sometimes it’s hyphenated.  There is no right or wrong way to do it, and convention is no longer the convention.

Many couples that do marry, that do have children, divorce.  Families break apart, then the parents find new partners and remarry, taking their respective children with them, all with different surnames.  Now you have one household in which there are any number of people featuring any number of surnames.

Perhaps in an attempt to renew a sense of family cohesiveness, when families come together a new name can be made for everyone to adopt together.  The single Mr. Gardner marries the widow Mrs. Fletcher and her adopted children Pedro Valdez and Erin McGillicutty.  And upon their union they all become the family “McGardenFletchAldezIcutty.”  And together, they are again one.

Street Cred by Proxy

I am not gangsta.

When I am bored, instead of doodling I make up quadratic equations and solve them.  I not only know the difference between “further” and “farther,” I insist at all times that those around me use them correctly.  I still know all the words to the entire 1988 Hangin’ Tough album and sing it in the shower.  And in my car.  And in line at the grocery store.  And when I am at the bank and the song “Glad You Came” starts humming from the ceiling, I will stop in the middle of the transaction to say to the teller, “You know this guy is actually saying that this girl looks healthy when she is on top of him, right?”  It’s a compulsion.

The closest thing I have to street cred is what is left when I overpay my real estate taxes.

But my partner, on the other hand – he’s got a ton.  It’s not that he’s a “gangster” of any kind, and maybe the term “street cred” isn’t right.  He’s got the closest thing one gets to street cred when one grows up in suburbia.  In high school he was friends with all the skaters, and all the punks who smoked behind school.  He could also talk to any athlete like they were best buds – probably because he didn’t use terms like “best buds.”  And because of this reputation, he had the kind of status that made him alluring to everyone, not just those he already knew personally.

And of course this system of repute followed him into adulthood.  Throughout his higher education, and later his career, his company was always prized.  There are several reasons why:

First of all, he doesn’t sit around going, “No, dude – I’m the speaker so I imply, you’re the listener so you infer.”  In fact, he doesn’t say much of anything.  You would think the most popular guy in the room would be the loudest, the funniest, the most entertaining – not so.  He’s actually the guy who never gives his opinion on anything, and therefore never makes waves.  He just smiles his debonair smile and lets everyone else do the talking.

And then there’s that – he’s friggin’ hot.  You certainly can’t play the tall, dark and quiet card if you aren’t, you know, tall and dark and pleasing to look at.

Now, what is convenient about my partner is that he has a very unique name.  We’ll call him Lance Kerspletchersneft.  There is no other Kerspletchersneft in the area.  Possibly no other Kerspletchersneft in the country.  For all we know, it’s a totally made up name.

So, when I show up to places and I am identified as Mrs. Kerspletchersneft, I am automatically awarded his street cred.  “Oh, you’re Lance Kerspletchersneft’s wife?  Come on in!  Hey everyone, this is Lance Kerspletchersneft’s wife!  Someone give her a beer!”  He doesn’t even have to be with me – his name is.

Even if I go to a party, or some like event, and I come into contact with people that I already know – people who I have already told, “you mean ‘could have,’ not ‘could of’” – they are still willing to grant me the benefit of the doubt, simply cause Lance Kerspletchersneft did.  If Lance likes her, well, she must be all right.  Give her a beer.  And don’t spit in it this time.

Now that I’ve gained this street credibility, if even by proxy, I certainly don’t want to give it up.  So I take a page from my partner’s book and I’ve learned to keep my mouth shut.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m still the person I was before.  I’m still the life of the party.  (And oh-so modest about it, too.)  But between telling jokes and spinning tales, when I hear someone say, “No, Brah, he lives further down the road,” instead of pulling out my white board and beginning a long and involved grammar lesson, what I now say is, “Someone pass the Jack Daniels – I need a top off.”

Constitutionally Gay: Why It’s Okay to Be a Homosexual But Not a Pedophile

The Constitution of the United States is perhaps the single greatest document ever conceived of in the history of human existence.  Specifically it is the Bill of Rights, the amendments added to the constitution before it was ratified, that Americans fight so readily to protect, and what makes the Constitution supreme over all other forms of governing artifact.  Almost the entire document, which spells out the basic human rights that the Declaration of Independence holds to be “self-evident,” can be summed up thusly:  you have the right to think, say, believe and do whatever the hell you want, as long as you don’t infringe on the rights of anyone else.

As an example we’ll start with a longtime favorite:  the right to bear arms.  You can own a gun.  You can own several guns.  You can have in your home your very own arsenal, comprised of varying types of firearms in any different number of sizes, calibers, colors, and designed for any range of purposes.

But what you can’t do is rummage through your gun collection, pick up your favorite nine millimeter, and go pop a cap into the first random blonde you see filling out her Powerball ticket at the Seven Eleven’s lotto counter.  To do so would be a violation of the blonde’s inalienable right to life.  So, while you do have the right to own a gun, you do not have the right to shoot people with said gun.  Unless another person has broken into your home, or in some other way is directly threatening your life, to shoot another person is infringing on their rights, therefore making the act criminal, and unconstitutional at its essence.

For the past many years, there has been a strong push in the United States to criminalize homosexuality.  Most of this push has been made on moral grounds, rooted in claims found in religious texts; statistically, we can assume that the majority of the morally-based push to criminalize homosexuality has come from claims found in the Christian bible, since most of the US population identifies with a Christian sect of some kind.

On the other hand, some of this push has been made purely on a level of discomfort; if homosexuality is illegal then it will stop, and the discomfort I am feeling will go away.  No matter what the reason, the movement exists to make two men smoochin’ a crime.  But the fact of the matter is, there is nothing unconstitutional about being a homosexual or practicing homosexuality, and therefore it is impossible to criminalize it.

It is important to understand that laws are not based on morality.  (If that were the case, most tax law would have to be eliminated.)  So, for the sake of this argument, let us assume that practicing homosexuality is a choice of moral disgrace – that it is irrefutably immoral to be a homosexual or engage in any homosexual act of any kind.  We are going to take off the table the idea that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle.  Since this is going to be purely an argument of legality, and not one of virtue, let’s just default the moral stance to “shame on you.”

If two men or two women choose to engage in sexual acts together, the result of those actions is that those individuals will be sent directly to hell after an untimely death.  Ten points to God.  However, they still cannot be accused of doing anything unconstitutional.

As explored before, the Constitution of the United States protects the freedoms of Americans, and Americans are free to do whatever they please as long as they are not infringing on the rights of anyone else.  Americans are free to engage in any immoral act they want without fear of reprise from their government.

An American may take the Lord’s name in vain right in front of the chief of police, and not a thing can be done about it.  An American may worship false idols on his own front lawn – he may even teach his children to do the same thing, and his vote will still count in every election.  We can lie to our mothers.  We can call out sick from work and go to Six Flags instead.  We can eat cheeseburgers – oh yes, milk and meat at once.  We have the freedom to make these choices, regardless of whether they are cosmically good for our souls or bad.

What is important in this scenario is the right of the homosexual American.  When a woman meets another woman and they decide to start a lesbian relationship, they are entering this relationship as two consenting adults.  These people are protected, under the rights of the Constitution, to make the choice to do that, even if it is morally wrong and even if upon their deaths they will burn in hell for all eternity.

If their friends and neighbors are concerned for the well being of their everlasting souls, they can send them copies of Watchtower, but they cannot make a law criminalizing their choices.  That would be a violation of their constitutional rights since their choice to be in a relationship together does not violate the rights of anyone else.  And if seeing those women sucking face on the corner of 21st and Broad streets in bright daylight makes you uncomfortable, well, sorry to say but you will just have to look the other way; comfort is not covered by the constitution as a basic human right.

The major way that the American people are attempting to make criminal homosexual relationships is by banning marriages between same-sex couples.  The first thing that is important to note is that legal marriages in the United States are performed either by a Justice of the Peace (you know, a judge) or through a religious institution.

The first amendment protects freedom of religion, so even when same-sex marriage is legal in every state, any and every religious institution has the right to deny performing same-sex marriages in their own institution.  It is their right, as expressed by the constitution, to practice their religion freely, and not be forced to sanctify an unholy union.

(On the other hand, if any church engaged in human sacrifice, we would surely bring charges against that.  I’m just sayin’.)

The status of “married” effects so many aspects of our lives, in meaningful and practical ways:  the way a person will file his taxes and the exemptions he qualifies for, accessibility to health insurance, the rates of his car insurance, the names and accessibility of his bank accounts, changes in credit scores, availability of loan monies – the list goes on and on and on.  To deny a person of access to those privileges by denying them the ability to marry is a form of oppression, and therefore directly infringing on his constitutional rights.

So while a religious institution is free to deny the joining of two same-sex souls in the name of God, the governing forces of the United States of America are not permitted to do so, because doing so would be equivalent to denying these Americans with privileges arbitrarily open to those who choose to marry a person of another sex.

As part of the argument to make homosexuality unlawful, frequently the contention is made, “if homosexuality is okay then what is next?  It’ll be all right to be a pedophile?”  Many people seem to be afraid that granting (though it would be more accurate to say maintaining) the rights of homosexuals would be the first step in a landfall of legalizing would-be criminal sex practices.

So, again, for the sake of this argument let us assume that homosexuality and pedophilia are all on the same spectrum of moral deplorability.  We will assume the circle of hell that is reserved for same-sex partners is also the afterlife home to the depraved individuals who prey on children for their sexual satisfaction.

Providing that be the case, there is still a very specific reason why homosexuality is protected by the Constitution and pedophilia is not.

What is the argument that has been made again and again thus far?  The Constitution protects the freedoms of the American people to think, say, believe or do anything, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

When homosexuals choose to enter into a relationship, as stated above, they do so as two consenting adults.  Their choice to engage in homosexual activity together is voluntary, and since they are both adults, they are able to make that choice without restraint.  Therefore, their actions are protected as freedoms.

The actions of a pedophile, however, would never be protected because a sexual relationship between a child and adult is lacking the major component of consent.

A child is restricted in many areas of life, even in regards to a law.  The most significant component of the law regarding children is called “age of majority.”  This is because it is recognized that children are not physically or emotionally mature enough to handle the responsibility that comes with these freedoms, which are inherently types of legal functions.

For example, it was decided that it was unconstitutional to make alcoholic beverages illegal.  Now we can drink.  (Woo hoo!)  Children, however, cannot.  Young children’s bodies are not yet physically developed enough to process the effects of alcohol.  Adolescents’ bodies may be physically able to process the toxins, however their brains have not matured enough to process the complex scenarios which are a part of deciding whether to drink, what the repercussions might be if one does choose to drink, and especially controlling how much to drink once one starts.

Therefore, while a child constitutionally has the right to consume alcoholic beverages, the ability to exercise that right is put on legal hold until the child reaches an age of majority, which is decided by each state individually.  (In most states it’s 21 years old, just a little FYI.)  There are ages of majority limits for innumerable activities, not the least of which are sex acts.

Generally the age of majority for sexual relationships is 18 years old, the same age that a child is legally turned into an adult and can do almost anything else that was previously out of his legal reach.  Sometimes there is an addendum which says something to the effect of children the age of 16 may engage in sexual relationships with other minors of the same age until age 18.  Either way, no one over the age of 18 is allowed to engage in a sexual act of any nature with a person under the age of 18.

We can plainly see that sexual activity is one of the exploits that is legally removed from the spectrum of activities available to children because they haven’t grown enough to make decisions about it; their bodies aren’t physically mature enough, their brains aren’t physically mature enough, and their neurological processes for handling those types of emotions haven’t been made yet.

Ergo, it is impossible for a child to enter into a sexual relationship consensually.  To do so, then, is a violation of the child’s constitutional right to safety, and as such pedophilic practices can never be made legal.  It would be unconstitutional.

From birth, every American is considered a fully-formed human being and is granted every constitutional right we have.  So, while the immoral homosexuals may engage in their deplorable acts of sexual indecency and be protected by the constitution, a pedophile is halted in his sexual practices by the very same constitution, because it is protecting the rights of the child, and the child has a right to safety and a right to be free from threat and coercion.